Identifying the Root Causes Contributing to Defects in Order to Minimize Scrap
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 8-10, 2016 Identifying the root causes contributing to defects in order to minimize scrap Zanele Mpanza Transport Systems and Operations CSIR Pretoria, South Africa [email protected] Abstract— The case study company was established in 2001. A needs analysis was conducted at the company and a high scrap rate was identified. The company made a financial loss of about R400 000 in 2013 and also in 2014 due to scrap. The company still faces a high scrap rate in spite of the quality management system in place. Defects are still prevalent in the manufacturing industry despite the attempts by companies to implement measures to eliminate them. A contributing factor to defects is the absence or poor utilisation of a quality management system. Measuring the effects of these defects on productivity and their contribution to losses in monetary value is likely to assist the company to use the tools in the quality management system to eliminate the root causes of these defects. An investigation into the root causes was conducted using a root cause analysis technique. Pareto analysis, Fishbone diagram and 5 Whys were some of the tools used to uncover the root causes of defects leading to scrap. The identified recurring defects were analysed to eliminate their root causes. Keywords— Quality management, Quality control, Production, Manufacturing, Root Cause Analysis. I. INTRODUCTION Defects are still prevalent in the manufacturing industry despite the attempts by companies to implement measures to eliminate them. A contributing factor to defects is the absence or poor utilisation of a quality management system. Measuring the effects of these defects on productivity and their contribution to losses in monetary value is likely to assist the company to use the tools in the quality management system to eliminate the root causes of these defects. Once the failures are identified, it is best to learn from them and avoid the recurrence using continuous improvement techniques. The case study company was established in 2001. The company conforms to all legal requirements as per the laws of the country and is one of a handful of foundries that are registered in terms of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act of 1995 (Act 45 of 1965). In June 2004, the company obtained ISO 9001:2000 quality accreditation and it was re-certified in 2010 to ISO 9001:2008. The company exports some of its products to Europe and the Middle East. The company uses the investment casting process to manufacture its products using aluminium, ductile iron, copper, stainless steel and other ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The metal is melted by using gas-fired and induction furnaces. The company manufactures castings for the aerospace and defence, automotive, mining, and medical industries. Some of their products include components for military vehicles, field guns, missiles, automatic weapons, rockets, safety equipment, automotive products and general engineering. The company is a job shop production plant meaning that they only make to order (MTO). The challenge the company faces is a high level of scrap despite having a quality management system in place. In 2013 and also in 2014, about R400 000 worth of products were scrapped annually due to quality defects. Sometimes the production line produces 10% more to compensate for scrap, resulting in overproduction. According to lean manufacturing principles, overproduction is one of the seven wastes [1]. Therefore, the root causes for defects need to be eliminated to reduce overproduction and thereby reduce waste. The defects affect the quality of castings which sometimes leads to customer dissatisfaction. The defects also affect the lead time because of re-work that has to be done and thereby causing delays. The company sends out customer satisfaction surveys to all its customers. The customer surveys are analysed and the quality of products and lead time are identified to be one of the leading complaints from customers. The aim of the project was to reduce scrap by identifying the root causes contributing to defects. © IEOM Society International 1139 Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 8-10, 2016 II. MATERIAL AND METHODS Direct observations were conducted; quality documents and process interaction sheets were studied to understand the process and procedures. The defects data were obtained from the quality control documents for the year 2014. Non- Conformance Reports (NCR) were also studied to understand some of the customer complaints. This exercise was done to identify the most common complaints and the action taken by the company thereafter. In order to address this issue, a Root Cause Analysis was performed. The RCA follows five simple steps being: • Define the Non-Conformity • Investigate the Root cause • Create proposed action plan and timescales • Implement proposed action • Verification & monitoring of effectiveness RCA is complemented with other problem solving tools. For this study the tools used include a Pareto Analysis, a Fishbone diagram, and the 5 Whys. After establishing the possible causes, we ask 5 Whys. The 5 Whys are asked until meaningful conclusion is reached. This method is used for the three defects identified to have a high significance in financial losses. The financial value of the scrap per month was analysed. A Pareto analysis (or ABC analysis) was performed to identify the most significant causes of scrap. The following steps were followed in performing the Pareto analysis: • A method for classifying the data was determined and in this case the number of products scrapped for different defects was used. • The next step was to choose a unit of measure. For this study two units of measure were used. These are the cost of scrap per defect type and the frequency of occurrence of the defect type. Two separate Pareto analyses were done based on these two measures so that results could be compared. • Data were then gathered for an appropriate time period which, in this case, was the whole of 2014. The data were then summarised by ranking the items in descending order according to the two selected measures in Step 2. • The total cost was then calculated as well as the total number of occurrences in the second case. • The percentage for each scrap defect was then calculated. • A bar graph showing the percentage of each item was finally constructed for the two cases. After this the results of the Pareto analysis were interpreted and the most significant defects were identified. Other techniques for root cause analysis were then employed in order to fully understand why the problems occur and to give recommendations to address them. III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Kaizen is a Japanese term for continuous improvement which emphasises that all employees in an organisation participate in improvement and that they perform their tasks a little better each day [2]. The problem solving and improvement process has a number of steps in which various methods and tools are used to better understand the problem and to determine the best solutions. The steps include: • Identifying the problem • Describing the current and revised processes • Generating ideas for process improvement • Achieving consensus among team members • Evaluating and monitoring results In Pareto analysis, items of interest are identified and measured on a common scale and then are ordered in descending order, as a cumulative distribution [3]. This technique is sometimes referred to as the 80-20 rule. Typically 20 percent of the ranked items account for 80 percent or more of the total activity. For example, 20 percent of mistakes account for 80 percent of © IEOM Society International 1140 Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 8-10, 2016 defects, 20 percent of defects account for 80 percent of financial losses. The greatest effort is concentrated on the few jobs that produce most of the problems. It allows the separation of the significant few from the trivial many so that efforts and resources are used in the best possible way and the biggest gains are attained. Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a method that is used to address a problem or non-conformance, in order to identify the “root cause” of the problem [4]. It is used to correct or eliminate the cause, and prevent the problem from recurring. Root cause analysis requires the investigator to look beyond the solution to the immediate problem and understand the fundamental or underlying causes of the situation and correct them, thereby preventing re-occurrence of the same issue. This may involve the identification and management of processes, procedures, activities, inactivity, behaviours or conditions. The 5 Whys method of Root Cause Analysis requires questioning how the sequential causes of a failure event arose and identifying the cause-effect failure path [5]. ‘Why’ is asked to find each preceding trigger until the root cause of the incident is identified. The 5 Whys method helps to determine the cause-effect relationship in a problem or a failure event. The 5 Whys method uses a Why table to sequentially list the questions and their answers. It can start with a statement of the situation and ask why it occurred. Then the answer to the first question can be turned into a second Why question and so on [6]. The fish bone diagram, sometimes referred to as the cause-and-effect diagram or Ishikawa diagram, was developed by Professor Kaoru Ishikawa in the 1960’s. It was originally developed as a quality control tool but it can be used as a problem solving technique or a brainstorming tool. It is a very useful tool for identifying root causes [1]. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A.